After a meeting with President Barack Obama in the West Wing along with Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator John McCain said Monday that the failure of Obama’s request for authorization to strike Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime in response to the use of chemical weapons “would be catastrophic” for the U.S.

Speaking to reporters outside the White House, McCain and Graham said they are not yet a lock to vote for the measure, saying they want to see Obama articulate a broader strategy for what happens when the cruise missiles stop falling to turn the tide of Syria’s civil war in favor of the opposition.

“Now that a resolution is going to be before the Congress of the United States, we want to work to make that resolution something that majorities of the members of both houses could support,” McCain said. “A rejection of that, a vote against the resolution by Congress, I think would be catastrophic, because it would undermine the credibility of the United States of America and of the President of the United States. None of us want that. What we do want is an articulation of a goal that over time to degrade Bashar Assad’s capabilities, increase and upgrade the capabilities of the Free Syrian Army and the Free Syrian government so they can reverse the momentum on the battlefield.”

McCain said he encouraged Obama to think beyond simply punitive strikes against Assad, saying, “A weak response is almost as bad as doing nothing.” After the meeting, he declined to discuss the options Obama laid out, but said a larger response is now under consideration. “I don’t think it’s an accident that the aircraft carrier is moving over in the region,” he said.

McCain called it “shameful” that the Administration has not stepped up its military assistance to the opposition, criticizing Obama’s efforts over the past two years as “a policy of neglect,” but the lawmakers signaled that may change. “There seems to be emerging from this Administration a pretty solid plan to upgrade the opposition, to get the regional players more involved,” Graham said. “We still have significant concerns, but we believed there is in formulation a strategy to upgrade the capabilities of the Free Syrian Army and degrade the capabilities of Bashar Assad,” McCain added. “Before this meeting we had not had that indication.”

McCain and Graham said Americans and their fellow members of Congress need to understand that the conflict in Syria is not an isolated civil war but a “regional conflict.”

“I can’t sell another Iraq or Afghanistan, because I don’t want to,” Graham said, previewing his messaging to his constituents as well as to his colleagues. “I can sell to the people of South Carolina that if we don’t get Syria right, Iran is surely going to take the signals that we don’t care about their nuclear program, and it weighs on the President’s mind strongly about the signals we send. So if we lost a vote in the Congress dealing with the chemical weapons being used in Syria, what effect would that have on Iran in terms of their nuclear program? Most South Carolinians get that point.”

The meeting was the latest effort by the Obama Administration to build support in Congress for intervention in Syria. The lawmakers said the Administration still has its work cut out for it in the days ahead.

“I am already talking to a lot of my colleagues, but before I can persuade them to support this, I have to be persuaded,” McCain said.

Okay, so the Republicans support a military strike in Syria.People are surprised? They’re warmongers…anything but help the American people to get beneficial and fair use out of their own tax dollars! Duh!

Dear President Obama,

Although I know that the Syrian people are suffering, I believe that the U.S. should not be the country that takes military action for the following reasons:

1) The Syrian opposition itself has mixed feelings about military action.

2) The French government wants to intervene militarily but will not act without us. And we don’t know if the resulting French Parliament vote will be to approve such action. If French MPs decide against military intervention, we will be left to take action unilaterally; this will be a huge mistake!!

3) The world was with us when we went after the Taliban in Afghanistan but turned against us when we invaded Iraq based on a lie! Had we let the IAEA finish its job, it would have proved unnecessary to invade that country but because we did, we will be treading very dangerous waters this time although we are obviously sorely needed right now; how sad.

4) International intervention in Libya got rid of entrenched dictator Muammar Gaddafi but Amnesty International is reporting that armed militia are circumventing whatever justice system is left and are taking it upon themselves to detain individuals “in relation to the 2011 armed conflict” (amnesty.org). No one is able to guarantee their safety by preventing abuses by the militia. I believe we can expect the settling of old scores in Syria, as well!

5) If we make a mistake by accidentally killing innocent women and children, the Muslim world will turn against, and then we’ll have to protect ourselves from Muslims of all nationalities, not just Syrians who want revenge!

6) The Russians are going to give us grieve, and the Iranians are going to attack Israel, and also American interests in Iraq.

7) The Saudis say there should be military intervention but I haven’t read ANYTHING about how direct their role will be. Having unrestricted access to their airspace means NOTHING

8) Why not let the regional powerhouses of Saudi Arabia and Jordan intervene on behalf of the Syrian people? Surely, it will be better for them to help their fellow Arabs/Muslims. If things go well, then they would have helped the Syrian people (this will bring relief to all of our hearts) and yes, they'll get the chance to crow. And in all honesty, God forbid, if something goes wrong, we will not be at fault and no one (government or individual) can lay blame at our feet!

The Russians never forgot their defeat in the Cold War. With the help of Iran and Assad they are trying to dominate US allies in the region. Stopping Assad will send a clear message to Iran and Russia that the US will defend it's interests in the region.

This has nothing to do with gassing children. Assad already killed thousands of them during the conflict. It's about a dictator willing to use chemical weapons against his own people now and against US allies/Us troops in the future.

You conspicuously omit any acknowledgement that the Bush Doctrine addressed the purported "risks of doing nothing" you naively or imprudently imply warrant military intervention here. Lo and behold, your "solution" to the "Syrian problem" is "arming and training" one side to a civil war, i.e., which will, of course, simply exacerbate the sectarian violence by providing means for Arabs to kill other Arabs. What possible "result" from your proposed "military solution" is going to advance the People's fiscal, strategic or diplomatic interests?

Second thing.

Incredibly, you and your ilk seem to forget that the Bush Doctrine (i.e., the implicit premise of your proposed cause of action) proved to exacerbate the anti-Americanism/anti-Israelism that the Arab ruling elite condition their own impoverished citizens to believe is "the real cause" of their economic plight. That is just being intellectually dishonest.

Just this: after "shock and awe", there is NO regime in the entire Middle East that "doubts" the US' ability to "follow through" on purported threats. As such, it is beyond disingenuous for you to even intimate that while YOU and YOUR GOP CONGRESS refuse to raise a thin dime to, say, renew the Food Stamps/SNAP program at home...there is a "thin dime" in your possession to allocate to enforcing a Police Power over jurisdictions not our own. Restated, you can't just keep paying lip service to a "strict construction" of the Constitution while you concurrently refuse to follow the LAW and RAISE REVENUE (via Article I, Section 8) for the People's general WELFARE.

Or perhaps you would be so kind to identify the pertinent case law or binding legal precedent that gives the Congress this lobbyist-driven, self-perceived authority to faithfully execute the Supreme Law of the Land?

How about you focus on your job administrating OUR jurisdiction and spare us the Iraq redux justifications. There is NOTHING the US can do to prevent civil war outside of providing other cultures with something to live for and something to reconcile over, e.g., Stimulus with strings attached.

Notably, there is NO END to your "endless military intervention" in the Middle East.

The follow-up might be the prelude of a direct attack on IRAN! in which case you would have to consider CHINA AND RUSSIA joining the"game"! China because it would be cut of a direct route, by land to Iran and its OIL(through the WAKHAN CORRIDOR) .. and RUSSIA because in this case it would transform the Mediterrenean into a ..NATO LAKE!

Now Obama knows pressure. And he utterly failed to rise up to the challenge. It was easy for him to blame Dubya. But Bush was more decisive and inspires confidence. Not this dithering spineless creature. Putin beats him up everyday for breakfast. To get back at Putin he would meet with gay leaders. Yeah right. That will show them.

Our presidents never learn about the
harm to our economy from Vietnam to the current two Middle East wars. Why we
need to be the world’s policeman (not stated in our constitution)? Ordinary citizens care about jobs and living standards, not about who is
#1.

Every bomb we dropped on Middle East would cause n
(you figure n) deaths in the US due to terrorist attacks. I'm not siding with
the devils, but statistics and Newton’s Law of Action/Reaction never lie.

Let them fight for their own humanity, freedom and ideology
themselves - we have enough problems (such as employment) to deal with at home.
Do you think the average Syrian want us to bomb their country? Ask any citizen
from Iraq.

How ironic that we have funds to bomb
Syria while we have to lay off the government scientists due to lack of funds?
Do we still encourage our high-school students to go to science? Oh, what a
bomber (Obamer)!

Why would it be catastrophic, Mr McCain? What piece of the sky is going to fall NOW on our heads, what tsunami is going to hit our shores, what nuclear bomb is going to explode in which American city? Where is the "catastrophe"? Or rather, for whom? It may be a catastrophe for some Syrians, but then again, they are an Arab, Muslim country, they don't particularly care for the US of A, so why should we care for them?

It's my understanding this is about chemical weapons. It's about the ability to kill masses of people relatively cheaply and throw something randomly that can't be hidden from behind a concrete wall or underground. The administration has been very careful to say it has nothing to do with kicking Assad out because they know that there is no rebel who would take our weapons and not turn them on us.

Graham and McCain say it's about going all the way to defeating Assad and thereby giving Iran a black eye, because in the end we're fighting Iran.

This is my understanding of it and the two positions are very different.

What a huge, stinking, steaming pile of bs. McCain is worried about "credibility" but what about the big question of "what happens next?" Of all the people I've heard beating the war drum, none of them seem to want to talk about that.

Sure Assad is a terrible guy. But if we help the rebels overthrow him, we could end right back into another Iraq situation where we overthrew a dictator that really wasn't much of a threat only to then have an never-ending war with radical Islamic terrorists who really are a threat and want to take over the country now that we conveniently removed the only thing standing in their way. This thing could very easily turn into another huge mess like Iraq or Afghan...or we have a time-table, overthrow Assad, then leave and let it fester and be taken over by radicals who will plot everyday on how to bomb us. But instead we have these blind idiots screaming full speed ahead with their dummy war plan worrying about "credibility".

Evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria should not be kept secret - Lavrov

The evidence produced by Washington
for Moscow of the Syrian regime allegedly using chemical weapons is not
concrete and has not convinced Russia, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov has said. He added that a 'regime of secrecy' by the West is
unacceptable with regard to Syria and the use of chemical weapons there.
Information sharing is a must.

Pff....if you read between the lines McCain wants boots on the ground. I sometime think he's working for the grim reaper since war is always the solution for him. He's a barometer of what not to do....

The US has to stop intervening in other country's problems sometime and the sooner the better. As Putin pointed out the other day, the US involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has done nothing for the people of those countries. I ask, what will the US do for the people of Syria if it bombs the place right now other than kill more civilians, blow up buildings, bridges, roads etc?

Syrian use of chemical weapons in order to mass murder civilians and the US reaction to it has two important points on which we must focus:

1. Morally, the entire world, not only the US, ought to see to it that Syrai is punished for such anti-humanitarian and illegal acts.

2. The US drew a line in the sand, and unless it stands by it, both friend and foe of the US, worldwide, will judge America. And, if America still wishes to ensure its interests around the world, it better show self-respect to the lines in the sand that its President drew.

This is NOT an Israel issue, although some, whoever they may be..... attempt to make it such, as it is easy to blame the Jews, again, for any predicament faced by society. This is, once again, an international issue and an American one.

get out now, they know nothing but anger and hate. who are we to play GOD ? Obama when you pick up a gun, then I will follow you and die next to you. if you can not do this, don't send our troops to die without you, in the physical body. talk is cheap,American lives are not.

I'd agree to missile strikes, if they consisted exclusively of bombs strapped to McCain and Graham, who were then catapulted in. Let them put their money where there mouths are, for a change. Why should the rest of us pay for their chicken hawk-ery?

Ben Swann On Syria, Journalism and Leaving Corporate Media.
Ben Swann joins Buzzsaw to talk about the Syria conflict and Al Qaeda's
influence there via Al Nusra Front, the US government overreaching into
people's lives, Reality Check and the Truth in Media project. After
converting from the corporate masters of news, Ben has made a true
impact on how people get their information and he speaks his mind
uncensored and clearly in this interview hosted by Tyrel Ventura. Ben
Swann is an award-winning television reporter who has worked in New
Mexico, Texas and Ohio. He also produced a fact-checking series entitled
Reality Check, which gave him national coverage for his reporting about
controversial issues. He has won multiple Emmys and Edward R. Murrow
awards. Swann
left a job at FOX19 and on launched a crowdsource funded "Truth in
Media Project," to continue production of his show Full Disclosure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxySCSJ3sy4

"McCain called it “shameful”
that the administration has not stepped up its military assistance to the opposition(!?)"

The representative of the
United Nations Commission on human rights in the middle East emphasized that
the composition of the armed Syrian opposition are only 5 % of the Syrians, all
the rest of mercenaries from different countries

External assistance to the
opposition, which leads the armed struggle against the legitimate government,
is a gross violation of fundamental rules of international law. In the
Declaration on principles of international law, adopted by the UN General
Assembly in 1970, it is noted, in particular, that no state shall organize,
assist, and financing of armed actions aimed at the violent overthrow of the
regime of another state.

The
mood was holiday like as an ordinary August weekend was to be added by Labor
Day. But it was spoiled by incessant militarist style harangues delivered by US
administration officials.

Americans
have already let know their reluctance to get involved in another intervention
– they still cherish a hope that the White House will take their opinion into
consideration. According to Reuters/Ipsos poll held right after the
chemical attack in a Damascus suburb on August
21, around 60 percent of US respondents opposed an intervention against Syria, while
only 9 percent approved it. The «covert war» waged by US government was snubbed
even more resolutely – 89 percent said arms supplies to rebels (or rather
criminal gangs) were to be stopped. Only 12 percent said «yes» to air bombings,
11 percent favored the establishment of no-fly zones, 9 percent wanted to
allocate funds for a multinational coalition, 4 percent supported the idea of US direct
involvement.

America has spoken. What about the White
House? It appears to ignore what the people think and say. What we hear are
ingratiating assurances from Barack Obama saying he is not considering any
option that would entail «boots on the ground», or bombastic encyclics by John
Kerry about the Bashar Assad’s encroachments on moral norms. That’s it.

On
September 5 Russia
hosts the G20 summit to be held in Saint-Petersburg. The country’s President
Vladimir Putin made his stance on Syria very clear, «Syrian
government troops are on the offensive and have surrounded the opposition in
several regions. In these conditions, to give a trump card to those who are
calling for a military intervention is utter nonsense», he told reporters in Vladivostok. «Regarding
the position of our American colleagues, friends, who affirm that government
troops used weapons of mass destruction, in this case chemical weapons, and say
that they have proof, well, let them show it to the United Nations inspectors
and the Security Council», the President said. http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/5912

Russia has submitted the documents and videos
to a United Nations Security Council’s closed session corroborating the fact
that the chemical attack in Syria
was a false flag provocation. To the contrary, as As-Safir, a Lebanese weekly,
reports the United States
has provided no documented proof to counter what Russia says.

The
weekly affirms that no way the US
intelligence data could contradict the conclusions offered by Russia, which
say that it was a false-flag action staged by Syrian armed opposition. Late on
August 21, the Liwa' al-Islam (Islam Brigade) armed anti-government group,
headed by Zahran Alloush, launched two self-made chemical agent-tipped rockets
at a Damascus suburb within thirty minutes. The Liwaa al-Islam is a powerful
Ghouta-based 25000 men strong armed group. According to as-Safir, the chemical
weapons rocket attack was launched with the mission to frustrate the government
troops offensive aimed at establishing full control over and around the capital
Damascus. The
planned attack took place at one o’clock in the morning in a Damascus suburban area with government troops
moving to the Jobar district to clean it from entrenched militants. As the
Lebanese media outlet reports, the militants retreated from Jobar ahead of the
Syrian army advance and just a few minutes before the rockets containing
chemical agents were fired. That’s why there are so few militants among the
attack victims, who for the most part happened to be civilians…

@Scout34g Thank you for your service. I agree with everything you said. We have millions of people that need assistance here at home. Our government is voted on and paid for by our citizens -- it should be our citizens that are taken care of first.

That's before I even get started on sending 19 year old kids to go die for a country that doesn't give 2 ѕhits about us.

I liked this report because it gives information about consequences based on facts. McCain talks about "regime change" and this explains who is fighting in this civil war, who is backing each side and why.

@drudown MCCAIN ONLY CARES ABOUT PAYING BACK HIS WEAPONS MAKING BUDDIES WHO PUT HIM IN OFFICE. YOU CANNOT TRUST ANYTHING HE SAYS ..... HE CHANGES WHAT HE SAYS DAILY BECAUSE HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE IS SAYING

@ReneDemonteverde Yes, please turn Obama into Bush so we can invade with lies and troops on the ground. Then Obama can joke about his lying at the Correspondence Dinner (Bush was so funny - what a jokester) and we can be inspired with confidence.

@romano70 One thing that will be catastrophic is to the Christians in the Middle East, if Assad a secularist is overthrown. Just as it was catastrophic for the Coptics when Mubarak was. This potentially damaging conflict could possibly engulf the Middle East. It is a lose lose situation caused by a man trying to be tough when he is not. Issuing deadlines for redlining to people with no respect for him, now he wants to save face. If only the country will save his credibility for him.

@therealdude Douthart: "it's about demonstrating that there are limits to what other governments can choose to do without repercussions . . . "

"It's not a world free of tyranny . . . but a world with fewer invasions, fewer war crimes, fewer massacres than in the past. And if we want to keep it that way, there has to be a price for crossing lines."

@therealdude Why we fail to learn that lesson is beyond me. At the rate we're going, we will have supported toppling every dictator in the ME, and the entire region will be Islamist state. And this could be far worse than you write. Assad has the 4th or 5th largest weapons collection in the world, and reportedly over 100,000 missiles he could launch on Israel in retaliation for us attacking him. They have nuclear weapons, and if an attack by Syria was severe enough, would be in a fight for survival. This is an incredibly dangerous situation, and McCain needs to be roped and gagged-he's a warmongering idiot.

@tkulaga
What will the US do other than kill more civilians, blow up buildings
etc? Getting rid of Bashar will put an end to the air support he so
heavily relies on, and will lessen the chance of any future chemical
attacks. Violence will not end once the US is done, but with Assad out
the US will actually be doing anything but killing more civilians

2. THis argument sounds so immature to me. How about we make a wise decision based on the possible results of our actions/inactions, not based on an argument that boils down to, "you said you would, so if you don't you're a WIMP!"

@JoseMartinez Now is the time to call out those that want war than blame Mr President for not striking, those that have been calling for USA involvement are those u need to talk to or about, the President gave it to you and me to make the call to our congressmen and voice our opinion if they will want to go back there come next election season; it is ur call not Obama's - comprendeh?

@JoseMartinez Have u ever thought of the ppl crying for this war from the start that got us here in the first place? Obama never wanted war but ppl like McCain sure do and wants it wider and troops on the ground, do you have anything to say about that than always look for something else to blame Obama other than he is Black?

Moscow
is not the only one who considers the attempts to put the blame on Bashar
Assad, accused of using chemical weapons against his own troops and population,
as «utter nonsense». Manlio Dinucci, a well-known Italian reporter, wrote right
after the August 21 events that it was absurd to accuse Assad of using chemical
weapons at the time UN inspectors were in the country upon his invitation. It’s
like a murderer calling police to his house at the time he kills a household
member. The Italian analyst has no doubts the August chemical weapons
provocation in Syria
was a false flag operation, which is routine for Western special
services…

According
to him, under the conditions of raging war it’s not a big thing to deliver
chemical weapons to some militant groups who would use them against civilians,
then the fallout could be recorded on video to put the blame of government
forces…: This is the way to create a casus belli to vindicate the further
escalation to air-sea strikes and establishing a no-fly zone.

The
casus belli of this dubious nature is a staple in the US administration’s
public discourse. There is a strong doubt expressed in the US media that
there is any strategy to back up the rhetoric. It sounds as an outright mockery
when the officials call the would-be actions «symbolic strikes». A columnist of
American Antiwar online outlet says sarcastically, «Secretary of State John
Kerry, and then Obama not long after he finished, publicly hyped their «common
sense» case for attacking Syria, insisting they have an unassailable case for
attack that no one (except virtually the whole rest of the world) could
disagree with».

«The whole rest of the world» is not a great exaggeration. Obama
comes under harsh criticism from all directions: the Left, the Right, inside
the country and abroad. An impeachment becomes a more frequently mentioned word.
Not so long ago the President seemed to be inclined to find political solutions
like the Geneva-2 peace conference on Syria. The opportunities are still
there. There is still enough time to take a pause and think twice about
it.

The
last August statement Barack Obama made was the announcement of his decision
not to deliver the strikes till he consults Congress.

@Sibir_Russia STOP TROLLING!!! We know you are a Russian agent, you know your position, get LOST! And by the way, what you do with your LGBT people is revolting, teh closes thing to a NAZI state in 21st century of course ahd to come from the land that never knew (or cared for) democracy

They have said it won't be another Iraq. We can't take their word for it but I'm willing to put some trust in their hands if it means lessening the violence in Syria. With Bush, the violence didn't stop because the troops remained. They have repeatedly stated this won't be the same.

Also I don't think we think who controlled the chemicals. All of the videos and personal accounts is enough justification that the Assad regime is manipulating the rebels and placing blame on them. Have you not seen the pictures and videos which serve as clear evidence that Assad has been killing his own civilians? And what would happen if we do blow up the chemicals?

@Ailaskd@tkulaga That way of thinking is what Bush had in mind with Saddam Hussein in Iraq.... I will leave it at that. BTW, today we think we know who controls the poisonous chemicals. If we go into Syria, can you tell me who will control the chemicals? Can you ensure we will not blow them up? Are you ready to fight for your country? What was your rank upon discharge? Which wars have you fought?